yeah that is what happened in u8, u9 and u10. that was 7v7 and he was a goal scorer. now the field is bigger, 9v9, and he is passing a lot and not driving to goal and shooting like he used to. i'm guessing its because its harder due to the longer field. but doesn't matter to me because he's making good passes, so i think hey its fine, spend this time to work on passing. he doesn't need to be so focused on scoring year after year. he's done that enough. he needs to work on other skills if he is to go far. yes it seems defenders and forwards get stuck there. i just don't want that for my kid. the parents who's kid play mostly defense are complaining as well about the same thing. so its not just me.
man, i don't know what to do. it seems to me that any kid, no matter who, if they are at a club, at this age level (10 yrs old)... that every kid should be exposed to every position at some point throughout a season. sure, maybe not in a tournament where you're trying to win. but over say a 10 or 11 month season. i mean, aren't we paying thousands of dollars so our kids can develop? not so a coach can pad his wins percentage? what the hell is so precious about a 10 year old soccer game that you can't give every kid a few minutes at center mid at some point? I just don't get it. to give some context, there are 4 teams at this age level. so that means all the players are at a similar level on their team. if a kid were wayyy better they'd be moved up. if wayyy weaker, they'd be moved down. so that they are on a team that fits their level. so no kid on our team is like light years faster or better than any other kid. they all have their differences, and strengths and weaknesses of course. sometimes i feel like i'm throwing money away if i can't even get my kid exposure to other positions. with that money i could put him in 5 different rec leagues AND hire a bunch of personal trainers!
Should I just embrace where they play him? I've been embracing it for 3 years already lol I guess I should still keep embracing it? Just get behind him being a winger and help him be the best winger possible and stop worrying?
No pre mls next or pre ECNL teams do that. These coaches feel the pressure from parents to win. If they start rotating kids to every positions, they will get complaints from other parents. By the way, every 9v9 parent thinks their kid can play midfield. Most 9v9 teams have midfielders who lose the ball often due to over dribbling and not giving up the ball quick enough. When the midfield struggles, non midfielder parents all think their kids can do better.
I already know they get complaints from the parents that their kid is playing too much in one position. So that contradicts what you say. And this is an MLS Next club. (but that starts at U13) Parents at this age don't care that much about winning. If they know anything about youth development. If its a tournament that's a little different, it just a weekend and you play to win. It seems to be a fairly objective assessment. What are the traits of a midfielder? What are their roles and responsibilities? Go ahead and tell me. I'm pretty sure its not... oh look there's an open guy there, but instead i'm going to take 9 touches and dribble through 4 guys and lose the ball. Do you even watch high level soccer? A skilled ball-hog is a prototypical winger. The kids who want to be Neymar or Rolando. Is Neymar a midfielder or winger? I've watched these kids for years, all year in games and practices. I know how they move and what they tendencies and preferences are, and their strengths and weaknesses. But its more complicated than that, I agree. Because soccer is a game of opinions. Even at the highest levels. Pep's opinion is different than Mourinho's opinion. You have your opinion. I have mine. There are other traits - work rate, off ball movement... that the coach is looking at and valuing over "ball-hogging" and not passing/losing the ball. That's his opinion. He wants relentless physical players even if they lose the ball. That's an opinion... and its short-sighted. In my opinion. Everyone brings their own biases. You like certain pro players, certain coach's tactics, certain national teams. Maybe you like Germany for their relentlessness... maybe you like Brazil for their flare. Maybe you like Sergio Ramos because he's tough and Ronaldo because he's fast. Or maybe you like Barcelona and Iniesta because they are great passers with vision. One is not necessarily right. But for 10 year olds, it is right that you want to value and develop technical ability... more than counter attacking speed and long ball. That simply does not have as much development value.
I'm not sure man, he's kind of ambiguous... i mean he'll tell me something... but its still not clear what he's looking for. for ex, he'll say that my son is not open to playing other positions. ok, what exactly does that mean? yet i talk to another coach (at same club) who said he doesn't let the kids dictate where he plays them. he does not care if they complain. he plays them where he wants and they have to do with whether they like it or not. because he knows he's developing them. so which coach Sam do you think is right?
Here is what I'm figuring out... after a variety of exchanges with the coach... He likes players who are physical and run nonstop and all over the place and "get dirty with tackles". But what about passing? he seems to put that at the bottom of his priority list. But how is soccer played? Is it not mostly a passing game? He likes Real Madrid, not Barcelona. He would rather win the ball with physicality and whatever... and then have the goalie boot it long and hope the forward can get the ball and score. Is this good development strategy for 10 year olds? I think its partly that he just doesn't like my kid's personality. Yes my kid is on the silly and goofy side. And maybe the coach finds it disrespectful. I would say, if he is not to your liking then drop him from the team! That'd be fine with me and maybe it would even be good for my kid. You're the adult. The adult needs to be stern and dictate things, not be affected by the silliness of a kid. These are 10 year olds so you're going to get some silliness. It's not that serious. But if you want less silliness, then demand if of him. Some coaches are have thicker skin and are just less affected I guess with kids and some don't.
Personally I don't think you need all players to be running a lot. A higher IQ would dictate that a player is more strategic with his running, so as to not waste energy and use it most effectively. But you really needs a mix of players and it also depends on their position. A center mid needs to be fit and run a decent amount, but they can run less if they are passing well, and positioning themselves well when out of possession.
You agree that everyone has a different opinion on how things should be done, but then get upset because your kid's coach does so.erhing different than you want. Think about that for a second. A coach is not, and should not, cut a kid in the middle of the year unless it's something VERY extreme. Honestly, I think there's part of the story missing. Either you don't have it, or you're not telling it. Either way is fine, doesn't matter. I still suggest having your SON tell the coach he wants to play mid. Maybe the coach wants to see kids "fight" for a position vs forcing them somewhere. Have your son ask what he needs to show in order to play mid.
No, I understand the coach's perspective. He wants players who will be gritty and aggressive to win the ball back. And my son isn't that type of player. He probably could be but he's not been in positions where he has to do that. Though he is quite good at pressing as a forward. Here essentially is what's going on. After much thought I think I understand. We have players A, B, C who are rated like so at these skills: defending: high dribbling: high passing: low off-ball movement: high finishing: med Then we have players, like my son, who are rated like: defending: low dribbling: high passing: high off-ball movement: low finishing: high The coach values defending and off-ball movement. And those are important for sure, as are all the skills. Those kids would be good defenders or defensive midfielders or wingers, based on their attributes. But he plays them at center-mid because he likes that they defend and check-in. But then they dribble in our half, when they could pass to an open man, and they lose the ball. BAD Whereas a kid like mine, he won't play him in midfield because he thinks 1) he will be a defensive liability and 2) he won't move off-ball (get open/check-in) well enough. Typically in a high level soccer team, take any pro team, mids would be rated as such: defending: med dribbling: high passing: high off-ball movement: high finishing: med The forwards would be rated as such: defending: low dribbling: high passing: med-high off-ball movement: high finishing: high In essence, he's not playing my kid at center-mid because he's not a good defender. That's fair I guess, though I think every kid at age 10 should be exposed to the position, for development. It's gotta be all about development at age 10.
The greater context is that, none of these kids are "bad" at any of these skills, or else they wouldn't be on the top team. So when I say my kid is weak at defending, its relative to his level. But on a broader scale in his whole age group he is a competent defender.
I'm not saying my kid would be a great midfielder. I honestly don't know; have never even had the chance to see him in that role. I think he is a good passer, but yes he is a bit weak in challenging for 50/50 balls. So he has some of the attirubtes but not all. But the main point is, he's 10. Who cares. Let them all try it and make mistakes and learn.
I think also, the defensive needs of the center-mid also depend on how strong the defenders are behind him. Do you need an A+ defender at center mid? No, not in my opinion. Most kids at the higher level are decent enough in their defending to play mid. If they are super good defending then most likely they'll actually play defender. To me, the way I see it is the defender's role is to defend and the midfielder's role is to distribute and service the forwards. But, as I'm learning, I see that many coach's like the center-mid to really play a highly defensive role. But again, I would disagree with that because that's what the defenders are for. Rely on them to do their job. Yes the center-mid should provide defensive pressure but they don't have to be great at defending.
I'm in a conundrum because I think that for his skill development he would be better served at a different club. But if I switched him to different club he would be very upset. So idk. Some parents would not care about their kids feelings and do what the parent things is best, period. And some parents would just say "hey as long as my kid is happy here he can stay" even if its not the optimal place for his skill development. What kind of parent are you?
I am both kinds of parents, because I think it depends on the kid and the situation. I have two sons just a bit younger than yours, and we have made different decisions on this front. My older son had the opportunity to move to a "bigger club", but decided not to. I discussed the pros and cons with him (as well as my opinion), but he decided to stay with his current team. Roughly two years on he now feels he has outgrown his current team to an extent, and is initiating the conversation with me about potentially switching clubs. Again, I will try to provide opportunities, opinions, and advice to him, but I feel that it needs to be his decision. My younger son is a slightly different case. He was playing up two years and was just as good technically and tactically as the other players, but lagged behind significantly physically (as would be expected). As his team started playing in higher leagues this became a safety issue in my opinion, as well as him picking up some bad habits because of it. He did not want to leave his team, but I took him to some tryouts and he had the opportunity to move to teams closer to his own age group, and I allowed him to choose from them. If I had not thought it was a safety issue, I would have let him make his own choice. While I agree with you that we probably know better than they do "what is good for them" in the long-run, part of how we learned that was making choices by ourselves, and sometimes getting them wrong. I think there is far more for them to be gained in life skills in making their own decisions than the difference in what they'll get from one club versus another. However, I have two red lines where I will step in and make the decision, if necessary. The first is safety, and the second is if I think that they are putting themselves in a situation that will cause them to lose their love for the game.
I can think of a 3rd situation - what if your son was not getting much playtime? My guess is you would consider pulling him even if he wanted to stay. Not saying that is my situation, but it is one that I have heard of.
How many MLSNext clubs near you? I see that those clubs take preference to their own players at least for the u13 team. If you want him to play at that level, you should stay unless you live somewhere with a quite a few of them. Switching clubs comes with a lot of things you do not expect. Politics is real unless your kid is flat out the best. Beyond that it takes a fair amount of time to break in, Even at younger ages.
Both of my boys are super competitive (my daughter is the opposite), if they weren’t playing, they would want to move. However, if they weren’t playing and didn’t want to move, I would let them make that decision. I would advise them against it, but ultimately it would be their decision.
The kid and the parents seem happier with the situation. I think the new team plays pretty differently from the old one. The CBs see a lot of the ball and are a lot more involved in the attack. The attackers appreciate the defenders as more than just "people who get the ball back for us when we lose it." But that's also a progression for all kids—positions can get a lot more fluid as the kids start understanding what they can be doing on the pitch instead of just filling their assigned roles. If the team needs a final pass to score, that can come from the striker or the defenders, not just the attacking mids. If the team (especially the striker) loses the ball, the striker can be the first one to try and win it back, not just wait for the defensive midfield to step up. If there's a breakaway the striker and midfield can help slow it down so it doesn't turn into a footrace with your defenders. I guess my takeaway is it probably matters less that your kid is playing at striker, but it matters a lot more that he thinks of himself as more than just a striker.
I think you make a great point. And that is mostly the mindset I have had. But also what I have witnessed is that talent will find its rightful place, regardless of the politics. Though maybe that is more of an exception. But I have seen lots of turnover at the MLS academies. A lot of kids get into the academy but do not get much playtime. Some of those kids end up leaving or getting cut. My friend's kid was at a pro academy. Minutes got reduced. So the dad took him to a regular club... because his thought was that you have to be playing in order to develop. Then he gets noticed at a tournament and is recruited by bigger pro academy. So he took one step back but then 2 steps forward. Maybe that's the exception to the rule. I don't know. But its basically the same thing you see in England football tiers and in baseball in America. Players that aren't quite ready for the big leagues, they need to play and develop, so rather than sitting on the bench a lot they go to the minor leagues to play and develop. So that made me think... maybe the most important things is simply is the kid playing and developing, regardless of the club. Though I do also see that the preferential treatment and politics are a force that exists.